tv [untitled] July 1, 2012 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT
relationship and exchanging information and understanding as we work together there is a problem, we will come too quickly because it is a matter of trust between all the different agencies. once you break that down, it does not work quite as well and this does the community in danger. >> your opinion is that sheriff mirkarimi will be unable to rebuild these relationships in the near term and perhaps not even in the long term. >> that's correct. this misconduct and some sort of conspiracy creates a problem for the other agencies when they are just trying to do their job and the best and most professional way they can. >> you have been around long enough to see sometimes political opponents who wind up being elected to elected office ought to be bitter rivals, bitter enemies, and later on, they find a way to work together, right?
>> i have seen that work, yes. >> you will not testify that if these removal proceedings to not end with the removal of sheriff mirkarimi, your not point to say that it would be impossible for him to rebuild these relationships. >> i do not believe there is anything impossible but the amount of time it takes to rebuild those relationships are the trust takes a long time. an incident may take place where you need that corporation today or tomorrow, not a year from now, not two years from now face toug. >> within the sheriff department's self,, that is like a command structure fifth, a paramilitary organization? >> yes, it is.
>> you have no reason to believe that his subordinates will defied his orders if he retains his office? >> it is my true and honest belief, sir, that the officers, the deputies, they desperately want the chief to be a person they can be proud of and they want to be able to hold him or her up and say this is the person that we work for. they want the ability to be true and honest when they say that. when you break that bond of trust, when you don't lead by example, not from what you say but from what you do, we are probably the most watched people in america, police chiefs and sheriffs, if you lose credibility. once you lose credibility, that is a problem. they say there are two standards, one for the sheriff and one for us. >> have you spoken with any deputy sheriff who says that if the sheriff comes back to the
job, i will not do what he orders me to do. >> i have not talked to any other sheriff and other agencies and certainly within the major city chiefs in the largest agencies in america, from new york to chicago, or all the sheriff departments in the country, the finding would be the same. they want that person to be above reproach. >> i will move to strike everything after the first clause. >> granted. >> thank you, chief. i have nothing further.
>> if an officer or deputy chooses to take the fit is that of cooperate with the investigation, does that have the same consequences internally for the officers discipline? >> there are two investigations to take place in any discipline with a person other than the chief and or the sheriff. the second part of that is the administrative investigation. you have a criminal investigation that takes place and that office or deputy can take the fifth and work only with their attorney and present whatever case they would like to present. you also have an internal investigation which is the internal affairs part. we have once we reverse miranda, you must talk to us and if you don't talk to us and tell us information that we are looking for youth in an honest and clear fashion, you can be terminated for that and that alone.
that does not apply to the sheriff or the chief. >> why is it important to have such a harsh rule? >> because the business of law enforcement, this is a noble profession. it is a gift. every time we sent an officer out on the street or deals with a deputy who was working in the jail, you have to trust with a two. if you have a believe that they committed a misconduct that is criminal in nature, you have an obligation to investigate it and get the affirmation as quickly as possible to make the decision if you're going to keep that person or move that person or correct them. so people in the jail or people in the public to believe that we serve are treated fairly and honestly every single day. >> moving on to the order that requires the sheriff to disarm and surrender his weapons, mr.
-- was asking you, isn't it sufficient, is it is sufficient if he gives them to law- enforcement? maybe that is the gist of the testimony, if i remember, and maybe you can correct me. why doesn't come if it doesn't, say that you must surrender your firearms to a different agency than the one that you run. >> because the chief investigators, those that are working on the case what control of these items because there might be more to the case that we're not aware of at that time. it is not only the battery but whether or not there are other issues are cases that might involve those weapons. the possibility of that happening are remote the possibly -- the certainly real. >> if you gave your firearms to a subordinate officer, but you
have the authority to get them back? >> i have no doubt that if i went -- >> hold on. what is the basis? i will overrule it. >> i have no doubt that if i went to one of my officers, the chief of police and say, give me the guns, he would give them to me. >> you mentioned something called a last chance agreement. what is that? >> in the system of discipline that we have across california the most of the time it is progressive discipline. it builds on itself and to you get to the point where you will terminate someone because that is a very serious response of misconduct within the police department. in many cases, what we do is like drunk driving is a good example. if someone is arrested and convicted for driving under the influence, they may be suspended, they may be put on
what we call last chance, which means if they agree not to be terminated and if they agree to carry out a drug testing, that they can retain their jobs. if they have any other violation of drunk driving or coming into work under the influence, they would be immediately terminated and they have no recourse to go through civil service. this is the best chance agreement. this is serious when you have done and our response is serious to manage it. >> if you were convicted of driving under the influence, would you enroll yourself in your last chance to >> program? >> yes. >>if i was arrested? i would be fired. i am a good will employee.
i cannot say stronger, it is a gift being a chief or a sheriff. it is a responsibility and it comes with awesome authority. we set policy, we said the procedures in place. we say what is important, what is not. we organized priorities. we move people around on a daily basis. i wanted to do that, you have to have a couple of things. you have got to have the trust and support of the politicians that you work for. you have got to have the trust and support of the officers, the trust and support of the community that we serve. all three layers. if you lose the trust, it is time to remove yourself from our position. being arrested as a chief of police, they have left gracefully. if i was arrested, i would leave the apartment because of the damage i would do to this department and that would be incredible and i could not repair it in the time i have
left in this business of law enforcement. >> would you compare overcoming political rivalries with being a convicted criminal making accusations against court in it criminal-justice agencies? is that the same caliber of this function that you could overcome? you were asked if you are aware of whether or elected politicians who had rivalries were sometimes able or often able to overcome them and work together effectively? >> yes. >> do you think that that is the same sort of problem that sheriff mirkarimi would have coming back to his position in
working with other criminal justice agencies? it is this like political rivalry or is there something more in this situation? >> there is a lot more in this situation, if you are talking about public safety and our relationship and how we work together. when we are standing together on the street or a riot or occupy movement, you have to trust that person standing next to you to cover your back. >> doesn't matter to you that sheriff mirkarimi pleaded guilty
to domestic violence? does this carry significant weight in your opinion? >> it looks like it carries more weight. he pledged to the crime. it says that he did it. he committed an incident of domestic violence. domestic violence is one of those things that we treated very seriously across california and the nation. it my understanding is one at a for of all the women in america are a victim at one time. >> are you making a motion to strike it? >> i disagree. >> we did the issue, pledged to
the crime, but he says he did it. he committed domestic violence. that is with us since we treat very seriously across america and the nation. >> everything from domestic violence is a serious offense across the nation. that struck. please proceed. >> in your mind, does it make a difference that he pled guilty and was convicted of domestic violence as opposed to a dui? >> i think domestic violence is a crime which is more than just an accident or a onetime incident. i think it is significant when you look at domestic violence that it is a behavior that needs to be corrected over a long time. i think that when you plead guilty to domestic violence, my understanding some of my experience shows me that usually when you have a victim report
domestic violence, is not the first time. it is not the first time. usually they developed the courage to step forward and reports that incident, not the sixth or seventh time that it occurs. >> everything after "is the first time" is stricken. >> do you have any concerns that a sheriff would have committed domestic violence? >> yes, i do. it is a crime that is violent in nature, that it is about control and power, that it is the
behavior. there is a tendency to use that control and power to their own benefit. >> wire those concerning? >> because you are in a position to use control and power every single day. >> you have any information on whether it matters to witnesses as to whether the chief officer committed domestic violence? >> yes i do. >> the whole thing is about that. that objection is overruled.
>> what is that opinion? >> there are lots of victims of domestic violence and they are frightened to report it and they want to know that the police department will be responsive in a compassionate and caring way, they will not become the victims, but they will be someone that that suburban or agency or sheriff steps forward to be able to manage that and make sure that their interest in their life is protected. beijing not often see the people who do the work every single day since else that this person
that you have to trust. if you have a belief that they're somehow bias or unresponsive, or not compassionate and the process, they will not report it. you want to reach out and make sure that the victims of domestic violence are encouraged to step forward to be able to move forward. >> the think it is possible to violate the standard of professional conduct for personal -- >> yes. >> do you think that sheriff mirkarimi has failed to do things that you have expected and would have been required of a chief law-enforcement officer in this case? >> i do. >> can you give me an example? >> it is my belief after reading the incident.
as someone who teaches ethics and process, you have to encourage victims to step forward. in this case, i was taken back. i read the reports, in my view, as a professional in this business, this is a true hero to step forward. they reached out to try to help someone in need in a compassionate and caring way. >> this is sustained. >> you were testifying that it concerns you, something about the treatment of 53 madison concerned you in regards to some
element of the sheriff's failure to act. could you explain that connection to me please? >> it is my belief that this sheriff should have defended someone to step forward to help his wife when she was an aide. >> why do you believe that ivory madison respected his wife? >> it is my belief that miss lopez went to her because she was frightened and scared and she needed someone to sit with and say, what do i do and she got exactly that, someone who tried to assist and help her and stepped forward. i think the sheriff should have stepped forward and congratulate and thank miss madison, not down to a position to allow some of the things that occurred which seem to question her credibility or attacker as a person. >> when a witness comes forward to report a crime, do you look into that witnesses or that reporting witnesses character or
whether she ever wrote a comic book or her political beliefs or anything like that? >> no, we take the statements that they bring to us. >> you don't believe you need to investigate the nature of the reporting on this? fifth fife for flex the only thing we would look at to see if -- aligns >> the only thing we would look at would be to see if there are any other reports. we congratulate them and every single case. we encourage them. >> does law enforcement of a handgun crimes being reported? >> we could not operate in a sheriff's department, police department without the cooperation of those people who step forward and bring us the information and are willing to testify. those of the people believe to encourage fifth as if you don't, it is a chilling effect on the
rest of the city. >> do you believe that it is important to treat complaining witnesses respectfully to encourage them to come forward? >> i do. >> have you ever had an experience in your years as a chief law-enforcement officer where a victim or witness was not treated respectfully and that discourages them from cooperating? >> i have. >> can you describe one of those instances. >> ofin the city of san jose or richmond, they have instances of gang violence. the witnesses were terrified and
it took us almost a year of hard work. we were able to bring the homicide rate down by 50% because as victims and witnesses step forward. >> would it matter in your opinion in terms of what the sheriff was required to do or not do to keep personally not making attacks on ivory madison but to say his attorneys in this proceeding did? >> it is my belief in reading the reports that he was a position to stop it and he did not do that. >> thank you.
>> you were asked a moment ago that if you got arrested for a dui and got convicted, whether or not you would in role in the last chance program. you said, i would enroll. >> i got confused in think about the advice i give to the officers. i would resign. >> so, you would resign, but it is ok for your support is to enroll. >> they have that option. >> i don't have anything further. >> concessions -- questions from the commissioners. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> i am interested in the standard of conduct that we are expecting to apply and i'm wondering if you could help us. in your experience, is or should
the standard of conduct, our charter, the conduct of falls along the standards of decency, good faith, and right action and is required of all public officers. i am wondering if that should be a city, regional, state, national, or other standard that we should apply. >> and this is the wrong witness to be asking. i would object that there is not any foundation to give that and a cause for the conclusion. >> your objection is noted and it is overruled. >> i believe it is a standard across california. >> you would apply a state standard in understanding that
definition? >> absolutely. i believe that would raise the bar for the entire state. >> on page 17 of your testimony, you talked about risk management and you said that "this compromise is the ability of the san francisco sheriff department personnel to effectively testify in criminal proceedings and presents a serious legal risks in civil litigation. can you explain what you mean by that? >> they have a list across the state of california that the city's attorneys and district attorneys have all got together. this is a list that has all of the officers who have something
that would cause concern in a criminal trial, a conviction would be one. i'm truthfulness would be another one. what it means is this, that every time you testified in court, if you are in a civil case or a criminal case, the district attorney would advise the court that in your background is an issue of concern. the example for the sheriff. there was an issue of domestic violence, they would step forward, i believe and say that this case, you need to look at it to help you make your decision as you judge the testimony of the sheriff. >> to is the you? >> it would be the district attorney talking to the courts. they are required to notify them so there is disclosure. and that never goes away.
>> could this be rebutted by being clear in the testimony or demonstrating that one was not testifying? >> they would have a chance in court to rebut it but this would be required to know about it before of the choir starts. >> i have just a few more questions. >> you have raised -- you have suggested that the law enforcement officer -- you have raised some questions about sheriff mirkarimi's discovery, activities, the defense that he
was mounting as a criminal defendant. and i wonder if you can help us understand how an individual, who has rights in any criminal proceeding, can mount a legal defense on his own behalf and continue to meet the standard of conduct to, as you describe it, support and cooperate with the administration? but i think that is one of the challenging dilemmas that we have. >> absolutely. everybody has the right to an attorney and representation, to make decisions in how they want to manage that case as it proceeds through the courts. that is something that is guaranteed to them. if they are not guilty, there is still an internal issue to take place, but it does not refrain them from doing that.
there is some requirement, with the guns, to step forward. they are required, or at least asked for, they should respond and give those up. it is evidence they are asking for. >> so, your concern is not with mounting a defense or explaining what your behavior was, or not agreeing to four charges, but pleading to a single charge. it was specific things you understood demanded a response. >> correct. >> you also commented about a criticism or a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. justice system. could you help us reconcile the